We concur in the view expressed by the Supreme Court, that the record does not disclose facts which would bring into operation the statutes relied on by counsel as affecting the jurisdiction of the justices' court over the subject-matter.

The final paragraph of the per curiam seems to indicate that the Supreme Court relied also on the fact that the jurisdictional point was not raised at the trial as being a waiver of that point. But the rule is of course settled that

For the reason first stated by the Supreme Court, the judgment under review will be affirmed.

The per curiam as reported in 8 N.J. Mis. R. contains a clause on page 624 based upon the statute which reads: "Any city or judicial court where a District Court is established," &c. This language is correctly taken from the statute of 1921 but that statute obviously used the wrong word and it is clear that the legislature intended to say "judicial district" instead of "judicial court;" in other words, to re-enact section 31 of the act of 1898 with the addition of the proviso that appears in the amendment of 1921.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.